Posted on July 7, 2009 at 2:27 am

For too long, our economic policy has been mistaken for one of the mind and not of the heart

The religious right might point to poorly-translated portions of Leviticus for their “moral issues” of the day, but a true understanding of the Bible will lead to one inevitable conclusion: social justice is more of a “moral value” than the defending traditional marriage could ever be. It is written: “If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks” (Deut. 15:7). Yet it is not enough to simply give to the poor: “Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy” (Prov. 31:8ff).

But this is a moral issue not only because of the Biblical commandments, but also as a result of what Americans must confront on a daily basis. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, it is unacceptable that there are children who starve, mothers who are worked to the bone but cannot get by, fathers who must choose between medication and food for their family.

Conservatives frequently cite anecdotal evidence about the “unfair” dispensation of welfare or social security checks to people who “don’t deserve it”. Yet the real question here is, and Hyman Bookbinder put it best: “Has every defense contractor yielded a perfect product, at minimal cost? Has every cancer project brought a cure? Has every space launching succeeded? Has every diplomatic initiative brought peace? Why should a less-than-perfect record for social programs be less tolerable to society than failed economic, military, or diplomatic policies?”

And, indeed, as humans are imperfect, we can only expect our social programs to reflect that. Yet the fact that the program is flawed does not necessarily override our moral obligations for a fair and just society.

In the past decade, the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has widened considerably. As a result of this economic crisis, for many, the gap of wealth has turned into a gaping abyss into which they might plunge at any moment – and into which many have already plunged. The recognition of poverty as unacceptable is no recent phenomenon. During his powerful, if tragically brief, campaign for the presidency, Robert Kennedy said, “I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil.” Politicians both before his time, and long after, have echoed this very same sentiment.

And, indeed, Kennedy’s turn of phrase remains applicable today, as it has always been and always will be: the issue of poverty is one of moral good and evil. Though we have recognized that at some point there is a tradeoff between the size of our GDP and the equality of our people, we must at some point question the true moral cost of a large GDP. If, indeed, it is at the expense of our poorest that we place caviar on the plates of the richest, by what justification can we continue such policies? If only through continued unemployment of those who can the trust funds the children of our wealthy weather the storm, can we truly deny an injustice perpetrated?

Advocates of the laissez-faire will claim that a rising side lifts all ships – yet come low-tide, when the fishing boats of the poor are crashed against the rocks of fortune and the yachts of the wealthy remain floating high, these same advocates nonetheless ignore the reality. Instead, they claim, eventually, the tide will return – instead they ignore the wrecks already occurred and the damage which must be repaired. For, indeed, an economy must do not only well, but good.

Truly unfortunate, however, has been the fact that the reality of the laissez-faire and the theory are as equally divergent as the promises of the communists and the results of their theories in practice. Secure in their nearly theological faith in the so-called “free” market, such ideologues will point at the heretical Europeans, claiming their social safety nets perpetuate a stagnant class system in which mobility is extremely constrained. Studies by economists have consistently demonstrated the opposite: as journalist Thomas Frank writes, “When economists measured mobility over the period 1986-91 they found that, in comparison with low-paid workers in European countries, American workers actually enjoyed…less class mobility, not more.”

This, after the promises of the Reagan and Bush administrations, after the deregulations of our economy, allowing corporations – including the airline industry – to, sometimes, quite all too literally, fly fast and loose with ourselves and our money. One can only imagine what the results of the continuing deregulation have been. As the religion of the unregulated market and crony capitalism has spread throughout the world, the effects have been devastating.

While the effects of the Clinton and Bush administration’s policies on class mobility may remain to be seen, there is little question on how they have changed other aspects of our society. Today, measures of social inequality show India, Poland, and Bulgaria are all more equal in their distribution of wealth than the United States. Our leaders should be utterly ashamed of this failure of capitalism – but of course, it has never been a secret that the goal of unfettered corporations is not to encourage equality, only profit. Indeed, the Gini index – a measure of income inequality – shows the United States in 1993 as more unequal than it has ever been since the Great Depression, the last great failure of capitalism which many have conveniently forgotten.

As more American children now recognize the Nike swoosh than Jesus, and as increasing numbers attempt to worship both credit card and G-d, it is time for a reconsideration of what we, as a people value. Will we accept a world in which we claim that we want to reward hard work, which, apparently, can be done by paying billion-dollar severance packages to CEOs who run their corporations – and, most recently, our entire national economy – into the ground? At what point was it no longer morally reprehensible that the top 1% of our population held nearly half of this nation’s wealth?

Those who venerate Wal-Mart as the savior of the working poor – answer me this: of what use would their union-busting, sweatshop-using ways be were the collective wealth of the American people distributed in a way such that mothers and fathers did not have to choose between college for their children, dinner for their family, or medicine for their parents?

The economic right will shriek about “totalitarianism” or “socialism” or, yes, even “fascism”, as if a regulation were the moral equivalent of silencing speech or torture. But, really, how democratic is a system in which there is little in the way of accountability of those who run it, whose calculator of worth rewards massive layoffs of the workforce while the perpetrators of unemployment make over one-thousand times the average salary of their employees?

Frederick Douglass once said, “in respect to any great change, (no matter how great the good to be attained, or the wrong to be redressed by it), may be calculated with as much precision as can be the course of the stars. They hate all changes, but silver, gold and copper change! Of this sort of change they are always strongly in favor.” Were one not already aware that this quote referred to the slaveholders of the 19th century, one might presume it referred to the capitalist radicals whose ideology seems so often at odds with what should be in their hearts.

Just because one of the arguments in favor of a position is religious doesn’t mean it’s the only argument. I’m assuming you claim “First Amendment fail” because you think that this involves some sort of violation of the separation of church and state. Unfortunately for you, the only reason that the First Amendment is involved in the debates with the religious right is that it is actually applicable (for example, the placement of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse). Claiming the violation of the First Amendment with regards to marriage equality is pretty silly, unless you get into a discussion of the fact that some ministers have actually been arrested for performing same-sex marriages.

Alright, well I read the rest of the posting and it turned out the exact reason I didn’t read further before was true. Your arguments are based completely on emotion rather than reason and rationality.

You assume it is the proper role of the government to make sure nobody is poor… Where is that part of the Constitution? Also you assume it is the duty of the rich to equalize wealth with the poor… Where did you get this from? Why should those who have worked hard and become successful pay those who haven’t been as successful?

I think it’s funny that you think that hard work is always rewarded. Apparently, the people who pick up our garbage, flip our burgers, clean our toilets, mow our lawns, etc. don’t work hard. Maybe you should tell some of them that, and see how they react.

My point wasn’t that the government has a responsibility to ensure that no one is poor — my point was that in the richest country in the world, it’s unacceptable that we have people starving in the streets. There are plenty of poor people who don’t starve, and there are plenty of people who work hard who are homeless.

Furthermore, one would assume that you want to maximize the happiness of a society — is a successful society not a legitimate government interest? If that’s the case, then laissez-faire economics is a surefire way not to accomplish that. It depresses wages, increases societal inequalities (which has led to famine elsewhere — for example, Ireland, India, and China — as well as numerous other social problems), and reduces class mobility (thereby more or less disproving the myth that hard work, intelligence, or both, will most of the time/always land you a well-paying/awesome job in a purely capitalist society).

Lastly, something I didn’t bring up in my article: your system has been tried before. It brought us the twenty-year depression of 1870 (lasting until 1890) in which wealth inequalities spiraled out of control and many, many people starved to death, farmers were forced to sell themselves into debt peonage, and so on, as well as the Great Depression (among other things). The only thing is that in the 1870 depression the wealthy kept getting wealthier while the precious free market kept feeding gold to the richest and in the 1929 depression many of the wealthy mostly stayed about even.

Yes, what a fun society that would be.

But, regardless, you missed the point of my article. The issue here is that there was a moral case to be made against the policies of neoliberalism — not just a logical argument with facts and figures. Human beings are wired to empathize with one another (one of the reasons we like to pretend poor Americans don’t exist, when in reality 60% of us will live below the poverty line at some point during our lives), and selfish ideologies like absolutist free marketeerism push people to exploit one another and see each other as means to an end (money) rather than human beings in and of themselves.

To protect against those violations of dignity, undoubtedly, some sort of safety net and regulations are necessary. If it means that the richest in society lose a couple of bucks at the end of the day, I’m okay with that, because those few dollars saved the lives of human beings.

Your response is fraught with assumptions and more emotional arguments with no reason to back them up.

“I think it’s funny that you think that hard work is always rewarded. Apparently, the people who pick up our garbage, flip our burgers, clean our toilets, mow our lawns, etc. don’t work hard. Maybe you should tell some of them that, and see how they react.”

Maybe I should? I started working in a vineyard at 9 years old. Sure it was hard work, but I realized that anyone capable of lifting a decent amount of weight could do this job. Its not just amount of work that determines pay, it is also skill level. So where is your “hard work” experience? Yeah, that’s what I thought…

You argument after this hinges on an assumption. Sure I want to maximize the happiness of society, but I think private actors do this best, not the government.

“Is a successful society not a legitimate government interest?” Where is it in the Constitution? And “successful” is an opinion that differs from person to person.

“Moral case”… since when is the government a good arbiter of morals? Tell me that it is and I give you Internment camps during WWII, Wars in Vietnam and Korea, The Trail of Tears, and the 3/5ths compromise.

“Violations of dignity”? Yet again, I give you internment camps during WWII, The Trail of Tears, and the 3/5ths compromise.

Your arguments are completely emotional and lack any backing of reason or rationality. Also you seem to think that your morals are a good basis for government. I think, seeing that we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, the Constitution is a good basis for our government.

Take a course in Constitutional history, maybe you’ll be able to figure it out yourself. In the meantime, the Supreme Court held for the government in Wickard v. Filburn — the Supreme Court will hold for the government in upholding its social programs.

“since when is the government a good arbiter of morals? Tell me that it is and I give you Internment camps during WWII, Wars in Vietnam and Korea, The Trail of Tears, and the 3/5ths compromise.”

Let me know how far your “natural rights” get you without a government to enforce them. Unless you don’t believe in natural rights and think that rights are accorded by society — and as such can be easily removed.

“Your arguments are completely emotional and lack any backing of reason or rationality.”

As opposed to yours, which make total sense. Right. Libertarian wingnuts like yourself like to be condescending and pretend that their “philosophy” is watertight, but in reality they are just as fraught with contradictions as the rest of us (the rest of humanity is simply humble enough to admit it). Stop being so smug and learn some humility, it might get you someone elected above the level of dog catcher.

Noah,
You will probably find this series of interactive graphics on social mobility in the US from the New York Times interesting; they paint the picture that social mobility is still possible in the United States.

All opinions expressed herein are the sole views of their writers and do not necessarily reflect those of the Politicizer's management or the writers' respective universities and/or employers. | Copyright 2010 The Politicizer: A blog magazine devoted to political opinion and analysis from the Internet Generation (college students/millenials)